Breaking the chains, winning the games, and saving Western Civilization.

Monday, November 28, 2016

Alpha Mail: divorce rape

A reader wants to start a #GamerGate-style movement against the divorce courts:

I want to start a gamergate style movement against divorce rape.

I just got divorce raped. In the end I'll pay to my ex around 50-60% of my net payh. I went from joint possession (50-50, equal possession) of my kids throughout the divorce, about two years. I now have four days a month. I must maintain a life insurance policy with my ex as beneficiary. I must pay in cash for medical support. The bitch can remarry, have another man raise my boys, and make me pay for it. And the state will beat me and put me in a cage, if I don't surrender.

I now have negative net worth, my ex has all the property and a net worth in the millions. She is a [professional] and earns [a lot more than most of us].

I'd have contributed much more to alt-tech if this hadn't been going on. Sorry, but this sucked the life out of me.

Following my own interests, I'm going to take the war to cuckservatives and feminazis who passed these damn laws that invert male headship of the family. We're going to change those laws. We're going to remove anti-male judges from the bench. We're going to work on getting Trump on-board with pro-father initiatives.

It really happens. It can happen to any man. And retreating from society and civilization and women is really not a viable option.

Perhaps we should stop pedestalizing and demonizing women, and instead focus on doing what men do, which is fixing the structural problem.

74 comments:

This is one of the very few areas in which French courts are way, way better than American ones. For that matter, as far as I know, every Roman-Civil Law legal system is way better in matters of divorce and family law than American courts. No friend I have fears getting divorced, and I don't know anybody who was divorce raped around here.

The solutions for feminism, are quite simple, repeal all laws not based on proven science & statistics.

As well as enacting laws pointing out the dangers of women, as women poison all societies even when constrained, women are an evolutionary dead end. Women are the root cause of the dysgenics spreading like wildfire in civilisations today. Women are anti-civilisation. Women create low i.q barbaric communities which eventually overrun all hi-tec advanced civilisations.

This is why 99% of all laws are based on hysteria & corporate bribes ie lobbying

It should be illegal to create laws not based on proven evidence based facts

Men desperately need a gamergate to combat the dysgenic anti-male laws, specifically designed to target high i.q males, while allowing barbaric communities to overrun the middle class

Women support & create divorce rape laws, precisely because it allows them to create barbaric communities of thugs to overrun all advanced hi-tec societies

While we need to specifically create a gamergate, specifically for men's laws. We also need a wider gamergate to target all laws not created using hard evidence based facts.

All laws not based on science, or statistics, & evidence based facts should be illegal, in fact they are illegal & should be made obsolete.

The basics to understanding law, is realising all laws are challengeable, using science, statistics & evidence based facts.

If you want to defeat feminism, & defeat the deranged degenerate subversive jews & their cohorts of women & hordes of leftist jewish marxist savages, create groups to challenge the laws they create with science, statistics & evidence based facts.

A friend of mine recently got divorce raped. His wife found a new home for her and her boyfriend, but waited until after her took her to a Caribbean resort for their anniversary. She makes a higher salary than him. However, after she left, she got fired from her job because she had been spending too much time calling and texting her boyfriend, and 3 months later found a job making Even more. Even though they have 50/50 official custody, and he has them most of the time, he has to pay child support because, despite her higher salary currently and during the marriage, her earnings over the previous year were less due to being fired. So her and her boyfriend are being subsidized by a cheated on husband who makes less than her. Insane.

His is a fools errand and is doomed to failure. You cannot "reform" the system anymore than you can reform a leech. If he has significant net worth he should immediately and without reservation pursue a second passport and get the hell out of the US altogether. For those who bother to research this you can check out Florida Alimony Reform (google away) and look at the list of stunning successes they've had in the last 10 years. Every 5 minutes they have yet another setback but continue to urge you to make donations and keep trying - yep - just keep working inside the matrix and eventually all will be well - absolute nonsense. You don't kill the beast by continuing to feed it and support it. You either violently overthrow the damn government or you get the hell out. Those are the only 2 effective options. So long as the police and judges are getting paid and 51% of the votes fall to women who will *always* vote to keep the present system in place regardless of whatever NAWALT stories you want to spin this will continue. It's long past time for Atlas to shrug and either he walks away or destroys the system using violence. None of the bad laws of Rome were repealed through legislative action - the Visigoths and Vandals employed other more energetic methods. If you aren't going to do that you are just wasting your time and convincing yourself that you are something special by posting information about what is already universally known to be wrong but continues anyway because ... DUH! VAG! coupled with female entitlement is stupid. Get that second passport and move out.

@Billy Boy and @Jose, in Brazil its not bad at all. You aren't even expected to pay alimony indefinitely, and if you did not caused the divorce (i.e., you were the person who was cheated, and not the cheater), you aren't expected to pay a higher alimony than the minimum standard of living requires.I think, as Jose said, that Roman Law systems of law may have something to do with it. These systems are based on laws enacted by the Legislative, and not judge-made law. That makes them less susceptible to ideological manipulation from judges.

I want to know more about how he went from 50-50 custody to four days a month.

In the state where I live, the people I know who are divorced say 50-50 custody is the baseline assumption, and child support is a matter of plugging in a formula that includes both your incomes and assets. (In other words, if she is a high-earning professional she won't get much child support.) Or so they say...

Why the hell you didn't have a prenup? You guys must stop being stupid. In Brazil a prenup is effortlessly enforced. It saved me once. In Brazil 50/50 custody is now the standard under the law. Alymony, when granted, is usually temporary and not very high. It's also deductible from your taxable income.

I've suggested a federal covenant marriage law which would override no-fault divorce state laws, and filing for divorce would be abandonment (abuse and adultery the other two, and strictly defined). The at-fault party loses everything and pays support.

We have that now but the man is always at fault.

The alternative is a DDD, divorced dads of death that would go around lynching ex-wives

You have to change the state legislatures. Courts (mostly) follow the laws handed to them. I live in CA where divorce rape is an every day occurrence. Target representatives. Support, and walk precincts for solid candidates. 1. Repeal no-fault divorce. 2. Restore bastardy (illegitimacy) laws. Those two laws alone will go a long, long, way to kill the cancer destroying the west. And men, NEVER, EVER marry without a prenup. Ever.

Perhaps we should stop pedestalizing and demonizing women, and instead focus on doing what men do, which is fixing the structural problem.

The only way to do this is to reestablish proper, widespread male authority over women. As I said in the previous thread, asking deltas and lower for help here is largely pointless: they have no authority over women except, perhaps, their daughters. I'd love to hear practical ideas, but what I see offered is bringing a sturdy individualism (self-improvement, individual moral leadership/combat) to a collectivist fight.

This is made worse by the natural male competition for mates, making it easy to dismiss other males as losers and break solidarity.

At least he wifed her up. That's the important thing. Well done!

And even had kids. So divorce rape culture is observably more darwinianly fit than MGTOW, so we should expect more of it.

#1, Dexter is a moron if he thinks family law judges follow the law. I'm not even going to type the sentence that explains why they don't have to.

#2, Divorce law exists as it does, and non-law practices exist, because of male morons.

The individual who wants to change divorce law appears to have not yet discovered that when he attempts to explain to his friends what just happened to his life, his family, and his assets, his friends will (per Dexter) suggest, "That's impossible! I want to know what else happened!"

You can find signs in retrospect for almost any problem. I could find it in the ending of my own almost 30 year marriage (at my wife's demand). That doesn't mean I could have easily avoided it.

Anyone can be subject to this, even those with supposedly committed wives. We do need to change the focus, as gamergate did, but it will be a much more difficult change since the wrong ideas are very integrated into people's beliefs.

We have to reform or replace the system to keep our society going, but things aren't quite bad enough for most to support change now. Seeing the problem is the first step in the process now. Why has no one mentioned any good ideas to change things? That is the exact defeatism VD pushes against in his blogs.

Why has no one mentioned any good ideas to change things? That is the exact defeatism VD pushes against in his blogs.

It is possible that it is an unsolvable structural problem. Hope and faith abides: twelve scared men in the upper room and all that, but this society may (in fact likely is) doomed.

The best idea I can think of is for men to help other men get high quality wives and then to support them in it: to compliment the other man in the presence of the wife, ideally to third parties, and to denigrate the dyscivic behavior of women in measured ways. This goes against male nature: we compete for mates and are prone to white knight for even moderately sexually attractive females. Some of the most combative conversations I have had with other men have been with churchian fathers of daughters who simply can't conceive that women control the mating market.

Of course, the question is: why should males do this, rather than just bang whores and recline poolside.

And so, we see, the necessity of a galactic-scale fascist-catholic patriarchy lead by an immortal God Emperor. Still working out how we get there.

"It really happens. It can happen to any man. And retreating from society and civilization and women is really not a viable option."

I look at my MGTOW philosophy as being an application of George Washington's advice regarding avoiding entangling alliances in foreign policy. It seems a true MGTOW is a person who is actually more free and available to provide time and resources and leadership to any efforts to reform society to make it more amenable to traditional relationships like marriage. The way it is right now, because of how the laws have been changed to operate so efficiently against men, only a very stupid man would sign up for any sort of relationship with a woman. Yes, I said stupid, and yes, I mean any kind of relationship. Of course it's the kind of stupid that I have a lot of sympathy for because it is an expression of powerful and almost insurmountable biological and emotional drives that cause men to make choices so adverse to their personal interests. What I would ask for is that if I'm willing to restrain my self from calling men who let women get within striking range of them "stupid," then they can let go of telling MGTOW's that we owe it to society to be stupid and sign up for the shit sandwich. Instead of telling MGTOW's to get married or find girlfriends or go out on a date or talk to girls, why not demand that they, we, I mean, help our brother's out and do our part to try to fix things the way this poor gentleman in the article above is suggesting? MGTOW's and be in society and not be "of" it, you know.

I do think, though, that going from "women have an advantage in the divorce results" to "50-50" really isn't much of a difference. The primary consequence of undermining the importance of the family institution as well as the rearing of children is still achieved. That and with so many women working, and with the ease of even average looking women to get remarried, 50-50 is very doable for most of them. Therefore it doesn't really dissuade divorce, nor does it really benefit the children given that they still will grow up in a broken home, and it doesn't really benefit society given that the mother/father roles are still being undermined.

Others might not agree with me here, but I don't think the first baby step of destroying these feminist laws is obtaining a 50-50 split. The first step, in my view, is repealing no-fault divorce and unilateral divorce laws. The second step, which is done somewhat in parallel with the first step, is changing the culture so that no-fault divorce, unilateral divorce, and feminist laws/principles appear absurd, impractical, and useless. Maybe these steps should be reversed. I don't really know. But I do feel confident that a 50-50 split is a pointless, feminist-esque goal, and it isn' t likely to further conservative (common-sense) goals. It's similar to a chess move that gets you nowhere.

I also got a gut feeling that of all the liberal tentacles that grip this planet, the feminist portion is the weakest. It is the most contradictory, and the most self-evidently wrong. I also think its the easiest to open people's minds to given that few men want to be called feminists, few women want to be associated with fat lonely cat-collecting spinsters, most children know in their gut that divorce is bad, and history shows every feminist experiment has failed in producing value for society.

Women are part of the electorate (53%) and the judges are well-aware of that. Voting is a privilege given to women by men with the 19th Amendment. Now that women have the privilege of voting and it cannot be taken away from them without amending the constitution, does anyone in their right mind think that will happen? Only an idiot could believe the divorce and custody laws will get changed to wreck this $50 Billion divorce industry as long as women are in the electorate...

"And the state will beat me and put me in a cage, if I don't surrender."

Laws made pursuant to the 13th (Federal) Amendment prohibit peonage. Which is what forcing someone to work to pay a civil debt under threat of incarceration is. Some state constitutions are even more specific. Alabama's constitution (Article 1, Section 20) says "No person shall be imprisoned for debt."

The way judges get around this prohibition is to order the individual to pay and then when they can't/don't they are jailed for contempt because they violated the judges' order. This is a "legal fiction" to get around the constitutional prohibition on using incarceration to coerce a man into paying.

So, challenge this in court, but understand the issues involved: winning will bring economic devastation for the state. I won't get into that because it is extremely unlikely the issue would win, but so far this issue has not been seriously challenged.

After the case is lost war is the only remaining moral recourse, but the violence must be applied to those responsible: women of voting age. Not the government or the attorneys, but the women who voted to create this problem. How long would women be registered to vote if hundreds or thousands of random women were being killed each week because they were registered to vote? It wouldn't take much to get the ball rolling and after that, it would only be a matter of months before the vast majority of women would no longer be registered to vote.

How can a woman feel safe once she's no longer registered to vote? She must publicly identify as a woman by wearing a dress or skirt and a head covering in public. No more pants. That provides a very public view of how well the war is going (especially for the women) and the speed with which women change lanes on this will be mind-boggling.

The first problem is the speed and effectiveness of 4GW, along with the fact the government and police are powerless to stop it. Which means the next group with an ax to grind will attempt to replicate the procedure. Hello, BLM. The response to that will be extermination.

Or, men can do nothing and wait for the inevitable collapse which will be much worse because women will have a voice in policy decisions. And when the shooting stops the women who don't have a man to stand up for them will be SOL. Marriage will look very good again. Which is what Isaiah 3:12 through 4:2 is describing.

The above explains why lots of men lose their jobs and then somehow lose everything else as soon as the wife files for divorce. One I know worked off the books until the kids were grown. He didn't support his kids, but he didn't support his wife.

While I don't approve of this method- because of the impact on the kids--a man should support his kids-- some biblical teaching here... Others have lost their job and immediately changed state residences etc.

The sad ones simply think that they will get a just or fair deal with the courts and end up like the poster above-- child support impoverished. It really is unfortunate that a man needs to look at various state laws and have a leave the state plan once kids are in the picture if the wife files for divorce.

So, challenge this in court, but understand the issues involved: winning will bring economic devastation for the state.

Good!

I won't get into that because it is extremely unlikely the issue would win, but so far this issue has not been seriously challenged.

Not "extremely unlikely," but IMPOSSIBLE. If we've learned nothing over the course of the last 230 years, it is that the judiciary NEVER rules in favor of liberty (even when doing so is fully in accord with "That Goddamned Piece of Paper" that no one pays attention to anymore) when it seriously threatens the power of the State.

After the case is lost war is the only remaining moral recourse, but the violence must be applied to those responsible: women of voting age. Not the government or the attorneys, but the women who voted to create this problem. How long would women be registered to vote if hundreds or thousands of random women were being killed each week because they were registered to vote?

You are correct, unfortunately, in stating that violence will ultimately be the only recourse to turn things around. HOWEVER, you and I both know full well that the State will expend every last ounce of resources and firepower that it has at its disposal to protect the empowered snowflakes from harm. Federal troops in the South during the Reconstruction Era were a joke compared to the armed force that Washington and its local surrogates will employ to ensure that those who are its power base (i.e, women and manginas) are protected from the consequences of their actions and as a reward for enabling the State to remain entrenched in power. Full-on North Korean-style dictatorship will be implemented to ensure that the status quo remains.

It wouldn't take much to get the ball rolling and after that, it would only be a matter of months before the vast majority of women would no longer be registered to vote.

First they came for the married men with divorce rape, but I didn't care because I wasn't married.Then they came for the PUAs with regret rape charges...Then they came for the casual Chads with positive consent policies...Then they came for me and I was all like "but I'm a virgin!" And that's when I learned that deserving has nothing to do with it, and nobody cares what "actually happened" because feelz.

The only way to really fix this is to eliminate all forms of alimony and child support and require 50/50 custody of children and 50/50 split of property assets. No exceptions.

Right now, most divorce reform groups have no interest in doing any of those things. At best you have MRAs who demand "equality" in the divorce court systems. Their efforts are ultimately wasted because the system isn't interested in dialectic. That's the game of the elites, not the voters.

So use rhetoric. Try positive statements like "empowered women don't need alimony or child support" or something to that effect. I'm not good at rhetoric myself, but it's something to start with.

And just hammer the people who promote alimony and child support, from the cuckservatives to the feminists.

On top of that, we should probably actively slut-shame again. Start with popular feminists like Laci Greene who has openly advocated riding the cock carousel.

Obviously you don't understand 4GW. On a tactical level I suggest you read John West's "Fry The Brain" and then consider Dave Grossman's "On Killing." Consider how many of Grossman's "3%" have been divorce-raped and then try telling me that every element is not already in place. And once the bodies start hitting the pavement, consider how many will use that as an opportunity to settle old scores.

The women will have an opportunity to opt out and publicly identify themselves as no longer being a target. By making their public attire distinctive and visible, the tipping point will be reached very quickly. Women are creatures of the herd, and the loud, strident feminists will get with the program or get killed. I suspect visible tattoos, strange hair coloring, staples in the face and other things like that would rapidly disappear as women try to blend in.

What I have described requires very few to implement and it would be opposed by the majority of men as well as women. While the position is a moral one, 4GW is only the opening salvo because war is merely politics by another means. There would need to be several election cycles in order for the change to take effect. Winning conditions require the eventual removal of the 14th and 19th amendments as well as a wholesale overhaul of divorce law.

The winning response of those who fear the armed population is to put a chip in everyone. Since we're practically there with cell-phone monitoring, I doubt there would be much resistance from women and manginas on that. Once that occurs it's game over.

Troops in the street are not the answer because they, like the police, are not combatants. Knowing they will not be targeted unless they intentionally attack, how much motivation will those police or troops have to get involved? And how do the troops deal with robotic shooting systems controlled from a distance? And if they want to go full-blown North Korea style police state, they just opened up an entirely new segment of shooting opposition.

This, yes. If she files, was not faithful, was not a wife in any sense, no alimony, and definitely not if she has a job or a degree that allows her to seek employment. The father is a better prospect from an economic and psychological standpoint, too, as the primary custodian.

Life insurance payable to your ex ought to be illegal. The shame. If you're so awesome you don't need no man, you don't need his money, either.

I know a young woman, married for five years to a military man. He left her, two kids, she has no education or resources (married at 19, mom just on the edge of 20). In her case I'd say, yes, alimony and definitely child support. He wants to fuck around with other women and will not support his children. Well, perhaps she should have made a better choice, and he should have been honest about his desires and options. This is not optimal for any parties involved, but they are the rock-bottom scenario people think of when considering the divorce problem. Not all, not even most, women are in this situation, and not all or even most men are in this situation. How to flip the rhetorical switch is a question of long game tactics, unless some touchstone case becomes a rallying point for even normies and fence sitters to come to the camp.

Do you all know about "Real World Divorce"? It's a fantastic recent summary of how divorce actually plays out in the US, with state-by-state comparisons and some additional comparisons with how other countries handle divorce.

http://www.realworlddivorce.com

As a bonus, it's full of snarky insider quotes like "`Divorce courts in the United States are unique in that they are the only court system where you get financially rewarded for breaching a contract,' noted one lawyer."

@praetorian "The best idea I can think of is for men to help other men get high quality wives and then to support them in it: to compliment the other man in the presence of the wife, ideally to third parties, and to denigrate the dyscivic behavior of women in measured ways."

One of my Alpha friends is very, very good at this trick, and it works like a charm. It 100% works on me every time, even when I know what he's up to. A sincere compliment from an Alpha is such a clear indicator of social standing, a woman can't help but be impressed by it.

And for you folks who still think the system can fix itself, consider that in the United States children are considered to be chattel property in a divorce. Children have no rights when it comes to the divorce and custody.

The fact that it is impossible to change divorce and custody laws in such a way as to recognize the rights of the children should be proof that there is no way in hell the system will be "reformed" in such a way that is equitable toward men. If the children can't get justice, forget about the men.

I've practiced divorce law in two Western states and I think alimony is the weak link, and once destroyed will pave the way for better outcomes overall for men. And if it were me, I'd attack it using gay marriage. When two women divorce, who owes who alimony? You don't need dialectic (though it would also support this position) to understand that divorce should end the relationship and asking one party to continue to be financially subservient to the other AFTER the divorce, just because one has a vagina, is ridiculous.

As a bonus, it's full of snarky insider quotes like "`Divorce courts in the United States are unique in that they are the only court system where you get financially rewarded for breaching a contract,' noted one lawyer."

Arguably also the only court system dedicated to enforcing what is clearly an adhesion contract, something that by its very nature should be null and void.

Judging by the high volume of intelligent comments, the #DivorceRape concept is an idea whose time is coming.

To the commentors arguing that these laws can only be overturned through violence I encourage you to imagine the amount of energy and drive you will need in such an environment, compare it to the amount of energy and drive you need to survive in your current environment, and apply the difference to #DivorceRape.

Because if you think the chaotic environment of a post-rules America is an easier one to live in, then you are not thinking clearly.

Post-rules means Negan, and that Negan might not be your be as nice as the television version, or your friend, or taking applicants. Post-rules, means “No Rules”. And “No Rules” doesn’t just mean you get to do anything you can get away with, it means the other guy also gets to do anything he can get away with.

That might actually work out very well for you if you are that kind of guy, but even if you are, it’s probably not going to be something that requires less energy than your current life requires.

I think you have a sense of fair play. But Alimony was created in a time when women were not allowed to work. Now women are allowed to work, and so now it has to be ended. The idea of appointing a judge to decide if a woman deserves alimony or not will inevitably and always lead to a system where alimony is regularly awarded. And that is because no normal human being will be able to look at a mother with children and not give her alimony.

Besides which, no, she never "deserves" it. Anymore than I deserve to continue taking a paycheck from a corporation if I've gotten fired or quit from said corporation.

The proper way to implement an alimony-style payoff system would be through a pre-nuptual agreement. Let the husband and wife agree on what would be a fair severance package before getting married. Going to a judge who will arbitrarily decide it will always end up with the current broken system. Sure you can have it going fair for a short time, but step by corrupt step it will end up where we are.

As for child support, I would ban it entirely. The parent who has custody of the children is the parent who must support the children. If that is the mother, great. If the father, great. The concept that a man cannot do as good or even a better job of raising children than a woman is nothing more than sentimental childish pap.

Lets see real proof, not dangerous sentimental bullshit, that women are better child raisers, and then I will take that seriously. If anything, if as an outside party I had to choose between a man or a woman raising a child, I think a man would be better at raising children than a woman.

One of my Alpha friends is very, very good at this trick, and it works like a charm. It 100% works on me every time, even when I know what he's up to. A sincere compliment from an Alpha is such a clear indicator of social standing, a woman can't help but be impressed by it.

Hey now, it works.

Can you give details? Put him in touch with Vox to get a post up on the techniques he uses?

I really liked your comment. Here is the problem: How do we take your insightful statements and meme-ize them so it can make sense to the average mind-controlled retard?

For example, I offer you the following clip of John Oliver demonstrating an effective meme to Edward Snowden on how to get through to the overage upright walking hairless monkey regarding the dangers of government sponsored internet surveillance. It's about 5 minutes from the point of the clip.

@Ron, women were allowed to work, always...but which women? Married women had some status as to not being "allowed" or able to work outside the home in many cases. Middle class women brought in mending and laundry, food prep for itinerants, boarding, child care, and nursing (in the days prior to its necessitating a STEM education).

Women have always been allowed to work...it's just been a question of which women. Which work, and how much money. Housework doesn't pay wages but it is not 100% unaccountable as far as work goes.

Sacrificing housework for other work is a question of social mores and acceptable standards. I would wager most women don't want to workin the corporate or storefront sense. They just don't know it.

&Why has no one mentioned any good ideas to change things? That is the exact defeatism VD pushes against in his blogs."

The answer is simple, the sphere is acting like cuckservatives whereas the alt right embraced the leftist paradigm with 'identity politics' for which the left had no answers since it uses it's own arguments.

The same should apply for marriage, rather than reinforcing marriage, it should be abolished just like the left wants. Start it off from a default state of divorce, no communal property, separate assets, no joint debt liability and separate fund with joint contributions for maintaining the children (with a liability incurred for the non contributing partner payable to the contributor).

Within a non marriage union there is no 'standard of living' to maintain, the fathers greatest asset is preserved (financial) and there is no need for dissolution as all assets are separate (no joint assets). Non contributing parents are already accounted for in the joint child maintenance account.

No divorce theft, no alimony, no child maintenance theft and voila problem solved. Rather than protecting marriage we should be tearing it down.

Post-rules means Negan, and that Negan might not be your be as nice as the television version, or your friend, or taking applicants. Post-rules, means “No Rules”. And “No Rules” doesn’t just mean you get to do anything you can get away with, it means the other guy also gets to do anything he can get away with.

I have lived in a lawless environment and you might be surprised at how little energy is required to deal with the *very* simple rules such an environment has. The truth is, there is no such thing as a truly lawless environment. It's the environment like the one the US has now that lets people ignore the rules.

Always be very, very polite. Self control is a good thing. Be well armed at all times, you never know what will happen.Avoid starting a fight but be willing and able to end one. Support your friends and family because they're the only ones who might support you. Be vigilant at all times, laziness kills.Think carefully before speaking, you are responsible for what you say.Don't lie and do not give your word if you don't intend to keep it.Honor your agreements and contracts, even when it hurts.Be willing to defend what is yours, every single time.If possible, be kind to others, expecting nothing in return.Be thankful for what you have, others have a lot less.

"How do we take your insightful statements and meme-ize them so it can make sense to the average mind-controlled retard?"

First, I think any meme has to be specifically targeted and must have two elements:

Moral element. What women are doing, through the laws and courts, is morally wrong. I won't go through the list, but stealing and injuring children is just morally wrong.

Shaming. Never underestimate the power of shaming, but in order for shame to have traction the woman must care about the issue.

With those two elements in place, any number of piggy-back memes can be built that use humor and irony to point back to the original meme.

I have a good friend who just entered this twilight zone . She got the house and in less than two weeks of the ink drying on the papers her "new" boyfriend moved in. The kids live with her and he gets to see them every other weekend. The worst part..he gets to pay for it all -working 5 days a week from 3 am to 6pm driving a semi truck. He has no life and has to pay everything to this bitch - even thought she's a working professional who makes more in three days than he does in 5. .And it all started because...she just wasn't happy !

Fuck Reagan and fuck the early 80's cuckservatives who brought us "no fault" divorce"

"but waited until after her took her to a Caribbean resort for their anniversary. "

Oh yeah...they are so adept at milking every last drip before its over. My ex pulled a similar move. Waiting until after Christmas was over before dropping the bomb. Sad sack that I was I remember spending an enormous amount of money on her that Christmas and that was at a time when I was dirt poor. Lesson learned.

Keeping your game tight, yourself physically fit, maintaining a life outside of the home, putting your needs first and maintaining a ZFG attitude coupled with an iron clad rule of " no apology" on your part.. will create a healthy respect and adoration from your woman ..should you be foolish enough to marry.

Why the hell you didn't have a prenup? You guys must stop being stupid. In Brazil a prenup is effortlessly enforced.

Yeah, well, we might bother with prenups if we lived in Brazil. In most US states prenups are narrowly circumscribed by law and can be arbitrarily thrown out by the judge.

Where I live the prenup can't cover spousal or child support, or any assets gained during the marriage. So basically all you can do is try to protect the assets you brought into the marriage, and still the judge can throw it out and assign premarital assets however he likes if he decides the prenup isn't "fair".

Shaming. Never underestimate the power of shaming, but in order for shame to have traction the woman must care about the issue.

And this is where your theory breaks down. Most women DO NOT care about the repercussions of their immoral actions. Hypergamous impulses ALWAYS overpower whatever residual pangs of moral conscience they might have. If they cared about their husbands and families or felt shame about divorce rape, they wouldn't destroy their families or even think about committing divorce rape in the first place.

@liberranter"Most women DO NOT care about the repercussions of their immoral actions."

Absolute horseshit. Observably, most women do not care about the morality of any particular act, but they care deeply about any possible repercussions that might result from their immoral actions, especially if it involves personal shaming. They cannot stand being called out and shamed. While they do despicable things, they do these things knowing that Team Woman will have their back and an entire legion of thirsty white knights have their back. They know the laws and courts are on their side.

What you are saying is pure projection. Women are women and they do not act like men. They rationalize things, personalize everything, their solipsism is boundless and more than a few are simply batshit crazy. Many are brain-damaged by SSRI's and inculcated in a system designed to help them avoid responsibility for their own actions.

The reason there will never be any reform of the laws is because voting is private. Women can't be called out and shamed for how they vote.

This is also why the 4GW solution I described earlier would be so effective. The women would be held accountable; forced to publicly comply or take the risk of getting killed and there would be no identifiable target for the women to vilify. White knights, Team Woman, the government and other enablers would not be able to protect them and the louder they screech the bigger targets they would become.

There is always a tipping point. There was a time in which women did not divorce-rape their husbands, but as more and more women discovered they could steal his stuff, take the kids and the courts would force him to pay for everything, at some point a tipping point was reached. Divorce-rape became a trend, then the norm.

A 4GW solution will also cause a tipping point to be reached due to the requirement for feminine attire in public. When the tipping point is reached the change will be immediate and obvious. Then it will be time to focus on the white knights and manginas and that's when the meme war will be effective. They were the enablers who allowed and facilitated the women's horrid behavior.

Oh yeah...they are so adept at milking every last drip before its over. My ex pulled a similar move. Waiting until after Christmas was over before dropping the bomb. Sad sack that I was I remember spending an enormous amount of money on her that Christmas and that was at a time when I was dirt poor.

Heh. My best friend from high school paid for his wife's new tits right before she punched out. Actually, I don't think I've ever heard of a married woman getting new tits and not divorcing her husband shortly after.

Thank you very much for your wonderful reply. I am embarassed to admit that I was speaking as if I knew what I was talking about, and your reply caused me to realize that I should have done research before opining.

But even aside from that, the code of conduct you described is very beautiful, and I have cut it out and want to put it somewhere that I can see it regularly.

I get your point, Ron, and in general I support it. Rhetorical arguments aside, there will always be circumstances to consider but law should not be made based on the rarer cases and exceptions. What we see is exactly that, though...law made based on extremes rather than the average reality.

The erosion of community and filial duty is an issue here. Families either don't give advice or have such poor relationships that advice is not heeded. Shame doesn't work because people either don't care or don't shame.

I face this with my little ones. So many of their peers are from broken homes (I use that term and won't be shamed out of it by the divorced mom brigade). I allow the kids to have casual friendships with these kids; it's not the child's fault mom and dad broke up, but I am careful that I am the one supervising activities. Kids come to my house or on outings with us, not with the divorcees. I am odd-woman out in this game, but I want my kids to understand that mate choice and divorce prevention are serious business. Commitment to a marriage is serious business. Toughing it out...serious business. if people stopped tolerating this stuff it might incrementally improve. Not holding my breath, but as with most things it starts at home and builds

I don't think people can relate to being shamed on these issues, not because they lack the ability to feel shame but because they have no social concept of it with regards to this issue. Shame is always going to be a necessary part of human nature. The same shameless individual who walks around unclothed would be horrified if accused of not showing compassion to some random Tree Sloth.

It's a matter of what the individual can relate to based on their own personality type and experiences.

Regarding your children: They are your children. People can tell you anything they like, but in the end the person who is going to really suffer if things go wrong is you. I'm not a parent, but from what I see from parents, they would do nearly anything for their children. I think a lot of people have an easy time giving "advice" or "judgement" of other people's raising of their children, because they don't have any emotional connection to the consequences if things go wrong. I would no more offer you my "judgement" than I would advise Picasso on what color to use on his masterpiece.

Personally, I'd be terrified to advise someone regarding their children. If I advise someone and if things go wrong I will be held accountable. The last thing I want when I leave this world is to deal with the shame of having to face someone whose life was ruined because I advised them to do something stupid. At that point there is no way to fix it. I'm not even talking about God's punishment. Eternity is forever, in a world of truth where you can't even lie to yourself. Someone who stupidly ruins someone else's life, is going to have to endure total awareness of that destruction forever. A thousand years in Hell is nothing compared to that.

I meant community and family in terms of having strong social and filial cohesion so as to prevent divorce, abuse, drunkenness, etc. police your own, in a sense. Don't tolerate anticivilizational BS in your community, if you want it to survive.

Yes, I think such women should absolutely be shamed, especially by other women. Divorcing women always assume all other women will be on their side, and unfortunately they're generally right. If that changed, I think it could make a huge difference.

I know a woman who had just cause to separate from her husband--he tried to strangle their daughter--but she still acts like the most disgusting of feminist divorce whores about it. She made the party that was supposed to be celebrating their son's successful cancer treatment about her getting her maiden name back instead, and now is acting like if she doesn't get a second marriage God's cheating her. I can't really shame her to her face because she's a generation older than me so I'd just seem like an impertinent kid. But I rather hope that she somehow comes across this and knows that she's the one I'm talking about.

I don't have much detail to add. I could give an example from Thanksgiving.Me: Blah blah blah.Husband: Pithier version of my blahs.Alpha: See, this is why you need Park. He really cuts through all those feminine details for you.

This may just be a good way to make sure that I'll die alone, but one of my ideas on keeping a marriage together is letting the would-be wife know that I intend to take "till death do us part" very seriously. I don't know if the problems of guilt and shame are really so big if you get that down. Get them (and their divorce lawyers, whom I would like to see rounded up publicly immolated) at least somewhat scared and then the good behavior will follow.